High Court · 2025

2. Shaik Asmath, S/o. Late Sri Shaik Sadulla, aged 26 years' Occ:- Business' -' Fi;."i1.ffi] i-i-ao1nonZ, A'fied Nisir Patel\asar, Amberpet' Hvderabad 500 013 ...PETITIONERS AND Oevefoiirnent Departinent, Sebretariat, Hyderabad

1. The State of Telangana, rep by its.Prl' Secretary' Municipal and Urban '' 2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner Lower Tank Bund, HYderabad

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle 2-GHMC' Uppal' Hyderabad 4. V. Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Late Laxmi Nivas'. aged 47 vears' Occ: Business' ' i.ltio. --6-i-tia-t'ioi'"cZlrnoi coo"aii "npartments Market Road' Khairatabad, HYderabad ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226of|heConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinlhe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing lntimation bfter No. UC/61/TPS/C-2ILBNZ/G HMC|2O24-25, dated 20 02'2O25 by directing the 4th respondenttovacatethepremiseswithin24hoursorotherwisetheunauthorized constructionwillbesealed,whereinthepetitionersareleaseholdersofthe premises bearing No. Plot No 61, Sy Nos. 1 to 40' 282 to 368' 369 (P)' 37O to 273, 374 (P), 375 r) 387, 295 to 401 , 454, 456 to 459, 50€, 1:>;, S.l0 to 564, Phase ll, HMDA l_:rrrut Uppal Bhagayath, Uppal, Hyderabad, the: 4th rsspsn6snl making illegar cons;lructions, but due to the said intimation noticr,r issued by the 3rd respondent, thr: letitioners reased premises is seared by the 3rd respondent is highly irregar, arrirrary and against the principres of naturar jr.rstice and arso viorative of Articre,s " 1, 19, 21 and 300-4 of constitution of rndia try setting aside the impugned intirn:t on letter dated 20.o2.202s and consequenflv (i1ss1 the 3rd respondent not tc) .lerf -'re into the peacefur possession and en ioyment of the petitioners leased prq mis;es, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Ser:tion 151 CpC praying that in the circllm:;tances stated in the affidavit filed i. support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the 3'd respor'.rent to unsear the leased premises of thr: 1;etitioners i_e., Open Plot No. 61. Sy No:s. 1 to 40, 282 to 368, 369 (p), 3tO ta i,.7i\, 314 (p),31s to 387, 295 to 401 15t., 456 to 459, SO5 (p), S10 to 564 rhase il, HMDA Layout' Uppar Bhagavath, Uppar, Hyderabad in pursuance of the: i.timation retter dared 20'02'2025 iss( ed by the 3'd respondent, pending disposar of the above main writ petition Counsel for the petitic,ners: SRt DINESH JAISWAL counser for the Rer;,:cnd,ent No.1: AGp FoR MUNrclpAL ADMr,.rsrRAT.ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respcndent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SRINIVASA RAO pt,Cl{UWA, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respxrndent No.4:-_ The Court made the lollorrrring: ORDER I i l I I ! i I i I .:, HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.7O22 OF 2O2s ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.Dinesh Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioriers, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.Srinivasa Rao Pachuwa, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-

2. The petitioners are claiming that they are lessees of the subject property i.e., open plot No.6 1 admeasuring 1195.99 square yards, or equivalent to IOOO.OO square meters, in Sy.Nos.389/P, 390, 391/P, 392, 393, 394, 395/P, 4OOlP, 402, 409, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 4 lO, 4l l, 412, 4r3' 4t4, 416, 417, 42O, 421, 422lP, 43, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428 atd. 429, situated at Uppal Bhagayath Village, Phase-II, Uppal Mandal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District, for the purpose of running mattresses manufacturing and sales business in the name of M/s. Zen Bed Sleep Solutions on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. Respondent No'4 is the owner of the said property' Petitioners have entered into a ') \- rted 16.09.2024 with respondent |{o.4 on the , e rr r ; :tnd conditions mentioned therein and they have pairl ;1r anlount of Rs.6,60,OOO/- towards advance- On receipt ol tt,: seLid advance, respondent No.4 - owr:er of the subject pfop(' -rJ constructed a shed.

3. Resporrclent No.3 has issued show-cause notrce dated O2.L2.2O?.4 to respondent No.4 stating that during routine inspection. r \vas observed that respondent l,lo.4 has obtained pe r-rrission for construction of residentia 1 ground floor and p,rr,i:eeding construction of commercial slred. It is illegal and I' cla ys time was granted to responclen. No.4 to submit expl;rr at:on. He has not submitted any exF,lanation. Respondent No.3 has passed speaking order dated 1I.12.2024 <1 re,:ting respondent No.4 to remove the said unauthori sr:rl :onstruction. Respondent No.4 has n ot removed the said u11 llthorised construction. Thereafter. re,;pondent No.3 has is:;rrrd notice dated 20.Ol.2O2S under Ser;ti:rn 46 1_A of GHMC l\,r r 1955. Respondent No.4 has subrrritr ed reply dated 19 .C.t2 . .',O2 5 . On consideration of the s ane, vide impugnecl rLr mation dated 20.O2.2025, responde nt No.3 f I i I I I .1i 3 informed respondent No.4 that the explanation submitted by him is not justifred and necessar5/ action will be initiated under the provisions of TS-bPASS' Challengrng the said intimation, petitioners filed the present writ petition'

4. As discussed supra, respondent No'3 has already passed speaking order dated 1lJ22}24 and there is no challenge to the said speaking order either by the petitioners or by respondent No.4' The present intimation dated 2O.O2.2O25 is only subsequential proceeding'

5. Perusal of the intimation dated 2O'O2'2O25 would reveal that respondent No.3 has already issued notice dated 2O.O1.2025 under Section 461-A of GHMC Act' Respondent No.4 has submitted reply dated 19'02'2025' Therefore' on consideration of the said explanation and since there is no challenge to the speaking order dated 1 I '12'2024 ' respondent No.3 has issued the impugned intimation dated 2O'O2'2O25'

6. As discusse d' supra, the petitioners entered into lease deeddated16.09.2024withrespondentNo.4forthepurpose of running mattresses malufacturing and sales business in 4 the namt: of M7's. Zen Bed Sleep Solutions or th,: sp".i6" terms and c:nditions mentioned therein. But in flre schedule of the said lr-.ase deed, the subject property was mer.: tioned as open plot. I)r en according to the petitioners, orr r..eceipt of Rs.6,60,000,/ towards advance, respondent No.4 _ owner of the subject rroperty constructed the said shed. tt is the specihc (:a s,_. ol respondent No.3 that respon.dr:nt No.4 obtained pe.r'tission for residential purpose, construc.ted shed and using tt lor commercial purpose. Therefore, pr:titioners before enterir.rli into the lease deed 16.09.2O24, they have to verify the d,:r<: _ rn6yp15 and conduct due diligence. E)vern in the lease deed .zL ,:d 16.O9.2024, it is stated that the petitioners have obtaine'rl ease ol the subject property for thr: purpose of manufacturingl arrd sale of mattresses. It is a conrmercial activity.

7. In tht: liplrt of the same, the petitioners are n,)t entitled for any relief, rru<:h less the relief sought in the pr"-s,::nt writ petition. Ther. irre, this Writ petition is liable to be clisraissed, and accordingti , d isinissed. Liberty is granted to resg;ondent 5 No.4 to challenge the speaking order dated 11.12.2024' In tll.e circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI UTY REGISTRAR D CTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI DINESH JAISWAL, Advocate [OP 2. Two ccs to GP for Municipal Administration. and Urban Development, High - cijrttl", ti6 State-ot Tetaniana at Hyderabad' [oUTI 3. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHUWA, S'C' for GHMC [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies MP GJP T{IGH COURT DATEID:0710312025 ,1t' iift ir6 ,it\ 7 ) J '.). t I0 FqY lZflfr z a t a[9 fs.', r C l.l = ORDER WP.No.'7022 ot 20Zs DISMISSING THE WRIIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @$f,sr#